Strip Destiny Church from tax free status

Please note this sub-forum does not provide professional finance advice. You should seek advice from a licensed financial advisor.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification.

If investing please consider our affiliate link for new accounts: Sharesies.

Forums › Finance and wealth management › Strip Destiny Church from tax free status

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

jonathan18

7415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2850

ID Verified

Trusted

#1676532 24-Nov-2016 08:45

joker97:

You know people go on about this Tamaki guy - there was a leaked recording of an Auckland imam preaching actual hate in a mosque ... now my question is two-fold

1. Is anything be done about that chap

2. How many other imams not had their preachings leaked

It's a matter of time before ....

Not sure if I'm comfortable with your inferences here...

But in regards to your first question: yes - it's been in the media the last couple of days. Thus far:

Seventeen complaints to the HRC

Permanently stood down from the Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1676533 24-Nov-2016 08:52

I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with my inferences either! But I just wanted to know that the appropriate people take action to strongly condemn and reject things like that and not just sweep them under the rug and pretend everything is just fine. Well they are just fine until ...

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1676534 24-Nov-2016 08:55

MikeB4:

A selective response somewhat.

If the provisions of the legislation are being met then tax liability is adjusted. Read the information regarding Sanitarium and it is obvious why they meet the legal requirements.

Sure they met the legal requirements.

The debate should really be why religion should determine tax status. We're a country where just over 50% of people seem themselves "religious". This is by no means a significant majority.

If it's fine for a company to play the religion card and save paying 28% company tax why can't any other company simply donate 28% of it's profits to community organisations it deems worthy and not have to pay tax. What is the difference?

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1676545 24-Nov-2016 09:14

sbiddle:

MikeB4:

A selective response somewhat.

If the provisions of the legislation are being met then tax liability is adjusted. Read the information regarding Sanitarium and it is obvious why they meet the legal requirements.

Sure they met the legal requirements.

The debate should really be why religion should determine tax status. We're a country where just over 50% of people seem themselves "religious". This is by no means a significant majority.

If it's fine for a company to play the religion card and save paying 28% company tax why can't any other company simply donate 28% of it's profits to community organisations it deems worthy and not have to pay tax. What is the difference?

You are selecting religion as the only charitable qualification, Sanitarium, Roman Catholic Church, Anglican Church, Salvation Army etc etc do a whole lot more for charity than just religious teaching.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1676547 24-Nov-2016 09:19

PhantomNVD:

So upliftment of moral standard is not a charitable thing? "beneficial to the community"?

I think all Religion(s) have a 'giving' nature and promote giving at a a fundamental level, so even if you don't believe in God, you surely believe in a high moral standard, and very few nations of the entire planet have issue with most of the basic "commandments" (shall not steal, shall not bear false witness, Honour your Parents, Shall not commit Adultery, shall not covet etc.)

So other than the actual belief in God, and the non violent worship of Him (in my own time and place) what exactly is it that you have against religion in general?

If (preaching) is your issue, why aren't you up in arms about advertising and sports promotion too?

Personally I'm not a fan of morals. They mostly tend to be about the imposition of judgement on others.

Ethics are important but are independent of religion. Even monkeys demonstrate basic understanding of reciprocity and solidarity.

Most religions I am familiar with are unethical because they have one or more policies of intolerance toward other groups of people. You don't have to read more than a weeks worth of news to encounter one or more religions engaging in: Homophobia, soliciting violence, sexism, hate speech against other religions...

As to the proselytising I am concerned that religion based charities encounter people at a time in their life where they are vulnerable. The charities therefore have a high level of influence over those people. That seems like an unhealthy combination, where the temptation to recruit additional congregation members is very high.

Mike

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1676551 24-Nov-2016 09:24

MikeAqua:

PhantomNVD:

So upliftment of moral standard is not a charitable thing? "beneficial to the community"?

I think all Religion(s) have a 'giving' nature and promote giving at a a fundamental level, so even if you don't believe in God, you surely believe in a high moral standard, and very few nations of the entire planet have issue with most of the basic "commandments" (shall not steal, shall not bear false witness, Honour your Parents, Shall not commit Adultery, shall not covet etc.)

So other than the actual belief in God, and the non violent worship of Him (in my own time and place) what exactly is it that you have against religion in general?

If (preaching) is your issue, why aren't you up in arms about advertising and sports promotion too?

Personally I'm not fan of morals. They mostly tend to be about the imposition of judgement on others.

Ethics are important but are independent of religion. Even monkeys demonstrate basic understanding of reciprocity and solidarity.

Most religions I am familiar with are unethical because they have one or more policies of intolerance toward other groups of people. You don't have to read more than a weeks worth of news to encounter one or more religions engaging in: Homophobia, soliciting violence, sexism, hate speech against other religions...

As to the proselytising I am concerned that religion based charities encounter people at a time in their life where they are vulnerable. The charities therefore have a high level of influence over those people. That seems like an unhealthy combination, where the temptation to recruit additional congregation members is very high.

I can tell as someone that spent quite a few years working as a volunteer for a church based charity I never discussed religion with any of the folks I helped. I was there for a purpose and did that. If asked I would refer them to a person of knowledge or on their request arranged for someone vastly more qualified than myself to discuss it with them.

Recruiting was never on the agenda.

was never on the agenda.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1676554 24-Nov-2016 09:28

MikeB4:

I can tell as someone that spent quite a few years working as a volunteer for a church based charity I never discussed religion with any of the folks I helped. I was there for a purpose and did that. If asked I would refer them to a person of knowledge or on their request arranged for someone vastly more qualified than myself to discuss it with them.

Recruiting was never on the agenda.

was never on the agenda.

I hear you. But I still think it's a situation where there is a potential conflict of interest. Therefore it's best avoided and easily avoided by keeping religion at arm's length from charity.

Mike

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1676557 24-Nov-2016 09:32

In a perfect world we wouldn't need them, the reality is without them we would be I a far greater mess.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1676576 24-Nov-2016 09:46

MikeAqua:

MikeB4:

I can tell as someone that spent quite a few years working as a volunteer for a church based charity I never discussed religion with any of the folks I helped. I was there for a purpose and did that. If asked I would refer them to a person of knowledge or on their request arranged for someone vastly more qualified than myself to discuss it with them.

Recruiting was never on the agenda.

was never on the agenda.

I hear you. But I still think it's a situation where there is a potential conflict of interest. Therefore it's best avoided and easily avoided by keeping religion at arm's length from charity.

The world is full of conflicts of interest. From being the POTUS right down to drug pushers and the homeless. Ever asked what sexual orientation or rugby supporter or animal rights lean or religion every teacher that teaches your kids at school? What about that of your local mayor, police constable or family doctor? At the microscope level one calls it religion. But on the big scale, what goes on is the culture in the wider society. I can see you're trying to change that, and it is a constant struggle which ultimately finds its own balance in a particular society.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1676583 24-Nov-2016 10:02

MikeB4:

I can tell as someone that spent quite a few years working as a volunteer for a church based charity I never discussed religion with any of the folks I helped. I was there for a purpose and did that. If asked I would refer them to a person of knowledge or on their request arranged for someone vastly more qualified than myself to discuss it with them.

Recruiting was never on the agenda.

was never on the agenda.

I have no issues at all with people doing good works. The world would be even worse than it is without them. I just don't see the need for a religious wrapper. If you are a good person who wants to help your fellow human beings, can't you just do that because you feel it is the right thing to do? I believe many church-based charities are quite genuine and sincere and they don't need to proselytise because they believe that the work they do speaks for itself. I think this probably characterises a large part of the Salvation Army. They lead by example, not by hammering the people they help with the bible. That is all well and good, so why not just be a charity and leave the religious dogma behind?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1676592 24-Nov-2016 10:17

Rikkitic:

MikeB4:

I can tell as someone that spent quite a few years working as a volunteer for a church based charity I never discussed religion with any of the folks I helped. I was there for a purpose and did that. If asked I would refer them to a person of knowledge or on their request arranged for someone vastly more qualified than myself to discuss it with them.

Recruiting was never on the agenda.

was never on the agenda.

I have no issues at all with people doing good works. The world would be even worse than it is without them. I just don't see the need for a religious wrapper. If you are a good person who wants to help your fellow human beings, can't you just do that because you feel it is the right thing to do? I believe many church-based charities are quite genuine and sincere and they don't need to proselytise because they believe that the work they do speaks for itself. I think this probably characterises a large part of the Salvation Army. They lead by example, not by hammering the people they help with the bible. That is all well and good, so why not just be a charity and leave the religious dogma behind?

Did you not read what is wrote "working as a volunteer for a church based charity I never discussed religion with any of the folks I helped" and that went for everyone in our organisation(s) it was part of the brief.

Some facts of life....

People seldom donate unless it's to a registered charity so they can claim back on tax.
People seldom donate to individuals.
It is extremely hard to do volunteer work without the backing of an organisation.
Churches do good works despite the prejudice.
Without charities including the church based charities we would be screwed.

I said to my self I was not going to get drawn into a debate about this as it has the same result as going outside and crashing my wheelchair repeatedly into the garage wall.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1676705 24-Nov-2016 13:12

MikeB4:

Some facts of life....

People seldom donate unless it's to a registered charity so they can claim back on tax.
People seldom donate to individuals.
It is extremely hard to do volunteer work without the backing of an organisation.
Churches do good works despite the prejudice.
Without charities including the church based charities we would be screwed.

Presumably people who donate to charity would still do so if there was an arms length separation of religion and charity. I donate to charity and I don't need church for that to happen.

Right now you can donate to a religious organisational and they can use that donation for both the operational needs of the organisation and for socio-economic charity. Both are legitimate uses of charitable donations. They can split that 95% - 5% in favour of the church and it's still legal.

But force them to have separate entity that gets all the donations and that stops.

BTW I encourage people to do some research on how much tithe gets extracted out of poorer households in NZ every year. As always it's the poor who get scammed.

Mike

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1676713 24-Nov-2016 13:35

Rikkitic: I think this probably characterises a large part of the Salvation Army. They lead by example, not by hammering the people they help with the bible. That is all well and good, so why not just be a charity and leave the religious dogma behind?

In USA apparently some kind of separation broke down and the ACLU took them to court about that in relation to state funded services.

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 82

#1676731 24-Nov-2016 14:41

MikeAqua:

Right now you can donate to a religious organisational and they can use that donation for both the operational needs of the organisation and for socio-economic charity. Both are legitimate uses of charitable donations. They can split that 95% - 5% in favour of the church and it's still legal.

And how much of your donation that goes to a non-church charity, actually gets used for good? A lot of it is tied up in admin costs.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1676907 24-Nov-2016 18:02

The reason many charities exist IMO, and why there is no rush to get rid of tax benefits for them, is because the government don't want to be involved with providing more government services than they have to. So even though some of the services potentially could be covered by government, charities fill the gap. It is almost like privatizing of public service. If you look at state housing for example, the government currently appear to be wanting to sell state houses to charities, so they then look after the maintenance and provide that service to end users. So charities are becoming more like privately run essential service providers, especially as many charities have their own CEO's and the title of CEO requires a salary level at a certain level. I wouldn't be surprised if NZ has more CEOs per head of population, than any other country. I think NZ could save a lot of money by getting rid of some of these titles. For example councils CEOs used to be referred to as the town clerk. Now they are called CEO's, they appear to be paid many times more than the Mayor gets paid.

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11